Fewer clean air violations found in states that spent more

Enforcement funds pay off, research findsFewer clean-air violations found in states that spent more

MATTHEW TRESAUGUE, Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle

Published 5:30 am, Saturday, June 27, 2009

Researchers followed the money to better understand the effectiveness of states’ efforts to clean the air.

Their findings, which will be published in the Notre Dame Law Review, show that states that spend the most to enforce environmental laws see results faster.

After examining four years of spending and enforcement action for Texas and 16 other states, researchers found that every $2 increase in per capita spending reduced by one day the time facilities violated the federal Clean Air Act.

Researcher Victor Flatt, a University of North Carolina professor of environmental law, said that while the findings may seem obvious, some states prefer to give industries more leeway to police themselves rather than spend more on regulatory efforts. This so-called cooperative approach became popular in the 1980s, as some states looked to save money.

The researchers don’t rule out that lower-cost, business-friendly carrots can work in some cases, or in tandem with regulatory sticks. But states can’t protect the environment on the cheap, they found.

A lack of spending creates lags in compliance that would be unacceptable to the public, according to the study.

“You can’t take away money from enforcement and think you’ll be fine,” said Flatt, who previously worked at the University of Houston.

The timing of the findings is significant, with states facing leaner budgets, he said.

“All states have limited budgets, and you have to look at the effectiveness of your spending,” he said. “This study shows the more you spend, the better results.”

Of the 17 states in the study, Texas ranked ahead of only Connecticut in per capita spending on environmental programs in 2003, the most recent data used.

Texas spent $15.58 per capita on enforcement. Alaska topped the list at $79.62. New Jersey and California, spent $57.53 and $26.91, respectively.

According to the study, a state that spends $68 per capita on the environment — compared to one that spends $28 — reduces by 20 days the time a facility remains in violation of the federal Clean Air Act.

“You have to be able to do mobile monitoring to catch the emissions that are missed or go unreported and have the threat of a big stick behind it,” Tejada said. “The TCEQ right now isn’t using that one-two punch.”

Terry Clawson, a TCEQ spokesman, said the agency is adequately funded and uses a variety of tools, including fines and incentives, to get businesses to comply with environmental laws.

The Legislature, he noted, provided for 50 new positions at the agency this year.